Eraserhead
Mar 23, 01:50 AM
These things don't travel very fast.
I was having a look on Google and a container ship only takes 20 days or so to get from China to Europe, and a military ship would be faster - so you don't need that much time to get ships into place.
And China to Europe by ship is a long way (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-sin-trv-dxb-cai-gib-sou&MS=wls&DU=km).
I was having a look on Google and a container ship only takes 20 days or so to get from China to Europe, and a military ship would be faster - so you don't need that much time to get ships into place.
And China to Europe by ship is a long way (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-sin-trv-dxb-cai-gib-sou&MS=wls&DU=km).
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 01:16 PM
+1
'lets make a tablet for our business users, to get serious workloads done. we can call it the playbook'.
i didn't know charlie sheen was in charge of their team?
If you watch and listen to Rim's co-leaders, you see the resemblance to Charlie Sheen. I'm all for company's fluffing their feathers and believing in the products they market and sell, but these guys come off as being sooo Charlie Sheen. Their grasp of reality is lacking to the point of making them sound ridiculous. I'm surprised investors don't punish them more for this - but of course many Wall Streeters still use BB's, so it makes sense.
Change is tough for lots of people and companies - which keeps Rim going and will at the same time be the death of them.
'lets make a tablet for our business users, to get serious workloads done. we can call it the playbook'.
i didn't know charlie sheen was in charge of their team?
If you watch and listen to Rim's co-leaders, you see the resemblance to Charlie Sheen. I'm all for company's fluffing their feathers and believing in the products they market and sell, but these guys come off as being sooo Charlie Sheen. Their grasp of reality is lacking to the point of making them sound ridiculous. I'm surprised investors don't punish them more for this - but of course many Wall Streeters still use BB's, so it makes sense.
Change is tough for lots of people and companies - which keeps Rim going and will at the same time be the death of them.
(marc)
Apr 27, 03:39 PM
The right wing has once again demonstrated to what extent it's pathetic. Obama once again acts like the only grown up amongst a crowd of children. Nothing new.
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:26 PM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
macman2790
Sep 19, 07:36 AM
apple store isn't down yet. I don't expect it today like a lot of people do
After G
Aug 26, 04:09 PM
If the power consumption is the same... does that mean that the Merom and the current chips suck the same amount energy while going full throttle?
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512keThey'd draw the same power, but the Merom would be done faster at the same clock rate. So you use less power by taking less time to do your work. That and better power saving modes.
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512keThey'd draw the same power, but the Merom would be done faster at the same clock rate. So you use less power by taking less time to do your work. That and better power saving modes.
Erasmus
Aug 26, 07:36 PM
not trying to start a war or anything but...isn't that what the mac pro is for? isn't the iMac considered consumer grade while the mbp is considered professional grade??? i think it is badass that the mbp is faster than the imac.
Yes, but Conroe processors are less expensive than Merom for faster clocks, faster bus speeds, but increased power consumption, but considering iMacs used to house G5's, and they don't rely on battery power, Conroe is the logical choice for the iMac.
Obviously the MBP should get the 2.16 and 2.33 Ghz Meroms, as you couldn't put a Conroe in one, but the MBP should not limit the speed of the iMac, just because it's not "Pro", and I would personally consider the iMac at least "semiPro" because it is damn fast. I've said before that there is much too much of a price and capability gap between iMac and Mac Pro, which could easily be filled with a "Pizza Box" or more likely, and probably more favourable in my opinion, a "fullPro" larger version of iMac (upgradeable of course) which I designate iMac Ultra, cos it's a cool name.
There are good gradients between Mac Mini and iMac, MB and MBP, but not between iMac and MP.
An appropriately maxed (RAM and GPU) 20" iMac costs AU$3169.
A "comparable" MP (20" ACD, 2Ghz, 2Gb RAM) costs AU$5148
That's 60% more. Enough to buy a Macbook to take to Uni. Apple needs a ~AU$4000 option to fill the gap, ie. with a bigger screen, upgradeable, better GPU, better CPU, and I will be very happy. :rolleyes:
Yes, but Conroe processors are less expensive than Merom for faster clocks, faster bus speeds, but increased power consumption, but considering iMacs used to house G5's, and they don't rely on battery power, Conroe is the logical choice for the iMac.
Obviously the MBP should get the 2.16 and 2.33 Ghz Meroms, as you couldn't put a Conroe in one, but the MBP should not limit the speed of the iMac, just because it's not "Pro", and I would personally consider the iMac at least "semiPro" because it is damn fast. I've said before that there is much too much of a price and capability gap between iMac and Mac Pro, which could easily be filled with a "Pizza Box" or more likely, and probably more favourable in my opinion, a "fullPro" larger version of iMac (upgradeable of course) which I designate iMac Ultra, cos it's a cool name.
There are good gradients between Mac Mini and iMac, MB and MBP, but not between iMac and MP.
An appropriately maxed (RAM and GPU) 20" iMac costs AU$3169.
A "comparable" MP (20" ACD, 2Ghz, 2Gb RAM) costs AU$5148
That's 60% more. Enough to buy a Macbook to take to Uni. Apple needs a ~AU$4000 option to fill the gap, ie. with a bigger screen, upgradeable, better GPU, better CPU, and I will be very happy. :rolleyes:
puuukeey
Aug 6, 07:42 PM
WISHES:
What os x needs to kill vista is to stop rehashing the same tired window metaphors and come up with something killer. Even if, at first, it has to fit into a new view INSIDE a window. It's been 15 years that researchers have had better and cooler ways to get around and use a computer. Spotlight is the perfect technology to slay the hierarchy metaphor but a poor poor implimentation. Even something as elementry as "bumptop" or ZUIs, but hopefully along the lines of Jeff Hans work which I'm sure we're all familiar with by now. or god forbid something original.
apple puts one tiny little gadget such as a gyroscopic sensor in a laptop and people have been going nuts writing cool software. imagine what would happen if they actually tried
Jeff Han rightfully mocks Bill AND steve (http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1)
What os x needs to kill vista is to stop rehashing the same tired window metaphors and come up with something killer. Even if, at first, it has to fit into a new view INSIDE a window. It's been 15 years that researchers have had better and cooler ways to get around and use a computer. Spotlight is the perfect technology to slay the hierarchy metaphor but a poor poor implimentation. Even something as elementry as "bumptop" or ZUIs, but hopefully along the lines of Jeff Hans work which I'm sure we're all familiar with by now. or god forbid something original.
apple puts one tiny little gadget such as a gyroscopic sensor in a laptop and people have been going nuts writing cool software. imagine what would happen if they actually tried
Jeff Han rightfully mocks Bill AND steve (http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han&flashEnabled=1)
Texas04
Nov 28, 06:29 PM
That would add already to the money that they get from the purchased music.. Apple will not allow this... at least they shouldnt, and wouldnt Universal be happy as is?
Microsoft started this and it is a good hit into Apple... but Apple has a agreement and will not break that agreement... especially to get rid of the ease of 99 cent standard pricing
Microsoft started this and it is a good hit into Apple... but Apple has a agreement and will not break that agreement... especially to get rid of the ease of 99 cent standard pricing
eeboarder
Jul 27, 02:29 PM
Actually, the merom in not completely compatible with the yonah chips. There will have to be some redesign on Apple's part that is supposed to delay the new MBPs. This article somewhat explains it:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.
MacinDoc
Sep 19, 02:08 AM
there's no reason not to switch to Core 2 Duo as they sell for the same price as Core Duo and are drop in replacement.. the only possible reason for the delay is supply shortage.. it's not unusual to see PC vendors announce new processors even though they are unable to ship them at that time, but at the same time they keep options for the older model, which ships instantly.. Apple thinks differently, they will announce the update when they're ready to ship and starting that day they cease selling the older models.. I think thats fair.. the only difference is that they don't make announcements several weeks in advance..
Apple has no reason not to follow Intel's speed bumps, because on each speed bump the prices shifts towards the lower models, in other words Intel keeps the prices the same but speed bumps at every level.. if Apple does not update, they're keeping extra money in their pockets..
as for the updates, I'm curious wheter it's gonna be just a processor switch or wheter they will also move from ATi to nVidia as they did in iMacs.. ATi is now owned by AMD and maybe somehow Apple bets more on nVidia because of using Intel processors only.. also I don't expect MXM slots for video cards for the same reason there's no processor socket in MBP, they ough to keep this as tight as possible..
Exactly.
What is wrong with you people? Meroms in other brands of laptops haven't, or are only *just* starting to ship, and you people wail that Apple is doomed, when in the worst case scenario, they'll be a few days behind Dell. If they don't ship by next month, then sure, complain, but really, most of those who moan that Apple is "OMG SO OUTDATED MEROM MBPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED 2 MONTHS AGO!!!" are out of touch with reality.
Amen!
Apple has no reason not to follow Intel's speed bumps, because on each speed bump the prices shifts towards the lower models, in other words Intel keeps the prices the same but speed bumps at every level.. if Apple does not update, they're keeping extra money in their pockets..
as for the updates, I'm curious wheter it's gonna be just a processor switch or wheter they will also move from ATi to nVidia as they did in iMacs.. ATi is now owned by AMD and maybe somehow Apple bets more on nVidia because of using Intel processors only.. also I don't expect MXM slots for video cards for the same reason there's no processor socket in MBP, they ough to keep this as tight as possible..
Exactly.
What is wrong with you people? Meroms in other brands of laptops haven't, or are only *just* starting to ship, and you people wail that Apple is doomed, when in the worst case scenario, they'll be a few days behind Dell. If they don't ship by next month, then sure, complain, but really, most of those who moan that Apple is "OMG SO OUTDATED MEROM MBPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED 2 MONTHS AGO!!!" are out of touch with reality.
Amen!
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 7, 05:43 PM
Keep that Lotus, you can use it for the British Lightweight race.
I've already done it with a....
300 kW TVR
:D
I love my TVR and my B-Spec driver actually knows how to handle it, so i've been using it as often as appropriate.
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
I've already done it with a....
300 kW TVR
:D
I love my TVR and my B-Spec driver actually knows how to handle it, so i've been using it as often as appropriate.
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
addicted44
Mar 31, 04:54 PM
What do you mean "if"? (http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-of-androids-ui/)
Thanks. Wish I could favorite that post to point out to Fandroids (have a few at work) everytime they tell me that Android came before the iPhone, to claim the iPhone copied it (yup, technically it did...but as you have shown, Android was nothing like Android now then...In line with its successor, which was an iPhone knockoff, Android then was a BB knockoff).
Thanks. Wish I could favorite that post to point out to Fandroids (have a few at work) everytime they tell me that Android came before the iPhone, to claim the iPhone copied it (yup, technically it did...but as you have shown, Android was nothing like Android now then...In line with its successor, which was an iPhone knockoff, Android then was a BB knockoff).
mcgillmaine
Jun 23, 01:48 PM
Now the two stores that were getting phones are saying they haven't got any in yet. so i'm going to pass on RS. Maybe i'll just trade my old phone for a case or something else.
Mammoth
Jul 15, 10:14 AM
Looking at PC product offerings by ATI (http://www.ati.com/products/workstation/fireglmatrix.html), you can see that they also offer video cards with two dual-link DVI ports on a single card. You can even get this on a Radeon X1900 series card (http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx1900/radeonx1900xtx/specs.html).
I believe you are wrong (http://www.ati.com/designpartners/media/images/RX1900_Board_lg.jpg).
(Believe)
I believe you are wrong (http://www.ati.com/designpartners/media/images/RX1900_Board_lg.jpg).
(Believe)
ckent
Aug 7, 06:11 PM
Haha! Did you see the video for Time Machine on the Apple website?
They're doing a "search for old friends", with the name "Rose" !!
That can't be a coincidence :-)
CK.
They're doing a "search for old friends", with the name "Rose" !!
That can't be a coincidence :-)
CK.
DoFoT9
Aug 28, 07:18 PM
i am looking forward to this game, no matter if it's got standard and premium cars.
yeh im over the bitching - just make the physics right and ill play it in 8 bit colour!
yeh im over the bitching - just make the physics right and ill play it in 8 bit colour!
mwswami
Jul 22, 09:53 AM
(Cloverton or Clovertown?)
It's Clovertown.
Here is a link to description of the Intel Core Microarchitecture (http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/) on Intel.com. Search for Clovertown.
It's Clovertown.
Here is a link to description of the Intel Core Microarchitecture (http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/) on Intel.com. Search for Clovertown.
braddouglass
Apr 6, 12:46 PM
Rev D. has no overheating issues. My CPU doesn't go over 70�C when watching 1080p Flash video in fullscreen. The fan sometimes kicks in but it's still very comfortable to use on your lap, since it's barely even warm. Older MBAs suffered from overheating, that is true.
Shouldn't the flash HD have a significant role in overheating? I would think with the Flash HD with no moving parts it would be hard to over heat unless you sit there blocking the fan the whole time. :confused:
Shouldn't the flash HD have a significant role in overheating? I would think with the Flash HD with no moving parts it would be hard to over heat unless you sit there blocking the fan the whole time. :confused:
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:14 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
Xeperu
Mar 22, 01:06 PM
My take on this.
The good:
1. Great specs
2. Great price
3. Great form factor
The Bad:
1. Looks plastic fantastic
2. Android (as in: bad ecosystem)
My verdict:
No thanks, I prefer the guarantee for fresh apps and business support that iOS provides me.
The good:
1. Great specs
2. Great price
3. Great form factor
The Bad:
1. Looks plastic fantastic
2. Android (as in: bad ecosystem)
My verdict:
No thanks, I prefer the guarantee for fresh apps and business support that iOS provides me.
talkingfuture
Apr 6, 10:09 AM
Sounds good, might be a bit nearer to buying one by then too!
mccldwll
Apr 27, 08:53 AM
And once again people give Apple a pass for something that is clearly an issue.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
Please get someone who understands cell technology to explain this to you.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
Please get someone who understands cell technology to explain this to you.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий